Ex Parte Kapoor et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613470662 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/470,662 05/14/2012 Shalini Kapoor IN920120017US1 4460 58139 7590 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. P.O. BOX 131851 DALLAS, TX 75313 12/27/2016 EXAMINER SPIELER, WILLIAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patdocket@winstead.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHALINI KAPOOR, PALANIVEL A. KODESWARAN, SRIDHAR R. MUPPIDI, NATARAJ NAGARATNAM, and VIKRANT NANDAKUMAR1 Appeal 2015-0036012 Application 13/470,662 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 This appeal is related to an appeal of co-pending application 13/471,541 (Appeal No. 2015-003602). App. Br. 1. Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “controlling enterprise data on mobile devices [by] tagging data on a mobile device as being associated with either enterprise data or personal data with a tag.” Spec. 2. According to the Specification, the claimed invention allows an enterprise to control enterprise data and applications that reside on employee’s personal mobile devices to ensure that such data is not lost or used in a manner contrary to the wishes of the employer. Spec. 1,5. Claims 1 and 10 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'. 1. A method for controlling enterprise data on mobile devices, the method comprising: tagging data on a mobile device as being associated with one of enterprise data and personal data with a tag; identifying a storage location of said tagged data; obtaining an identifier of an application that generated said tagged data; and storing, by a processor, said tag, said storage location of said tagged data and said identifier of said application in an index. 10. The method as recited in claim 1 further comprising: implementing an arbitration policy to select an appropriate tag associated with said tagged data on said mobile device in response to different tags being associated with said tagged data on said mobile device. 2 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 The Examiner’s Rejections3 1. Claims 1—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Batchu et al. (US 2010/0299376 Al; Nov. 25, 2010) (“Batchu”) and Quinn et al. (US 2003/0028850 Al; Feb. 6, 2003) (“Quinn”). Final Act. 8—11. 2. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Batchu, Quinn, and Data Loss Prevention Whitepaper When Mobile Device Management Isn’t Enough, Good Technology (2011) (“Good”). Final Act. 11-13. 3. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Batchu, Quinn, and Chan et al. (US 2004/0059966 Al; Mar. 25, 2004) (“Chan”). Final Act. 13-14. 4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Batchu, Quinn, and Panwar (US 2011/0093768 Al; Apr. 21, 2011). Final Act. 14—15. 3 The Examiner had also provisionally rejected claims 1—10 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over co-pending U.S. Patent Application 13/471,541. Final Act. 16—17. We note Appellants filed a Terminal Disclaimer on June 20, 2014. For purposes of this appeal, we treat the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1—10 to be withdrawn. 3 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 ANALYSIS4 Claim 1 a. obtaining an identifier of an application that generated said tagged data Appellants contend that, as opposed to the claim language of obtaining an identifier of an application that generated the tagged data, Quinn “teaches an application identification tag contained within the content of the electronic file that identifies a creator application program.” App. Br. 4 (citing Quinn 112). Additionally, Appellants assert Quinn’s application identification tag identifies a creator application program, which “does not correspond to an application that generated the tagged data.” App. Br. 7. Further, Appellants argue the application identification tag of Quinn, as relied upon by the Examiner, is not used to locate files. App. Br. 7. Instead, Appellants argue, Quinn teaches performing a look-up in a table for the application identification tag as opposed to locating files using the application identification tag. App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds Batchu teaches tagging data as personal (as opposed to, for example, enterprise data). Ans. 9—10 (citing Batchu 1 54); Final Act. 8. Additionally, the Examiner finds Quinn teaches obtaining an identifier of an application that generates data. Ans. 10 (citing Quinn | 8); Final Act. 9. The Examiner further finds the combined teachings of Batchu 4 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed September 26, 2014 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed January 26, 2015 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on December 10, 2014 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed on May 5, 2014, from which this Appeal is taken. 4 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 and Quinn “teach tagging a file whose creator application program has been identified.” Ans. 10. In the Reply Brief, Appellants concede “Batchu teaches employees tagging files.” Reply Br. 3. Further, Appellants note “Quinn additionally teaches that the application identification tag identifies a creator application program.” Reply Br. 3. However, Appellants attempt to distinguish Quinn’s creator application program as being used to create the electronic file as opposed to identifying an application that generated the tagged data. Reply Br. 4. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are not persuaded of Examiner error because Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection and attack the references individually, whereas the Examiner’s rejection relies on the combined teachings of Batchu and Quinn. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, the “tagged data” is taught by Batchu. Ans. 9—10. Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Quinn teaches obtaining the identifier of an application that generated a file. Ans. 10. We, therefore, discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combined references teach obtaining the identifier of an application that generated a file (i.e., Batchu’s tagged data). 5 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 b. storing, by a processor, said tag, said storage location of said tagged data and said identifier of said application in an index Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Batchu and Quinn teaches storing the tag, the storage location of the tagged data, and the identifier of the application that generated the tagged data in an index. App. Br. 12—16. In particular, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that Batchu teaches storing the tag, and instead assert Batchu teaches storing the tagged data. App. Br. 12. Additionally, similar to Appellants’ earlier arguments, Appellants argue because the combination of Batchu and Quinn fails to teach obtaining an identifier of an application that generated the tagged data, the combination cannot store the identifier. App. Br. 13. Further, Appellants contend Quinn teaches the application identification tag is stored in a look-up table and not in an index. App. Br. 13. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Batchu teaches, inter alia, the logging of tagged data. Ans. 10-11 (citing Batchu Tflf 54—55); Final Act. 8 (citing Batchu 148). The Examiner further finds the log of Batchu teaches the claimed index. Ans. 11. The Examiner explains how the three claimed pieces of data (i.e., the tag, the location of the tagged data, and the identifier of the application that created the data) are stored in the log (i.e., claimed index). Ans. 11. Appellants dispute that Batchu teaches storing of the tag, but assert Batchu stores the tagged data in the log. Reply Br. 6—8. We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive of Examiner error. As the Examiner explains: The act of storing the file tagged as personal data in an index of personal data inherently stores the abstract information in a 6 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 retrievable format, as it is possible to use the log to ascertain that the file has been tagged as being personal data on account of its inclusion in the personal data log. The claims are silent as to how the tag is stored. Abstract information is written, and from this written information, the fact that the file is tagged is recoverable. Therefore, the tag is stored. Final Act. 2—3. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding and find it is consistent with Appellants’ Specification. See, e.g., Spec. 11, Fig. 4. c. whether the Examiner erred in relying on the combination of Batchu and Quinn in rejecting claim 1 Appellants assert the Examiner “engages in a piecemeal analysis” by relying on the combined teachings of Batchu and Quinn and fails to provide articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for the proposed combination. App. Br. 9—10. Contrary to Appellants’ assertions, we find the Examiner has set forth a rationale to combine the teaching of Batchu and Quinn to “allow a user to locate enterprise data created by a specific application.” Final Act. 9. The Examiner further explains a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Batchu and Quinn to “allow the user to use the appropriate application to edit the data . . . [and] make maintenance of metadata storage more efficient by only requiring one reference to the file.” Ans. 10. Thus, we find the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for the proposed combination. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). 7 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim 2 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Quinn teaches receiving a system call from the application that created the tagged data. App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 8—9. “Instead, Quinn teaches saving a file.” App. Br. 19. Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of error with the Examiner’s finding. The Examiner finds the saving of a file teaches a system call. Final Act. 9. “An application writing to the contents of a file is a system call.” Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner. Additionally, Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Batchu teaches obtaining a user identifier of the application. App. Br. 19. Appellants concede “Batchu additionally teaches that in particular, activity data may include the number of calls made by a particular user, the durations of such calls, and the identity of the user placing a particular call.” App. Br. 19 (citing Batchu 45). Appellants argue the identity of the user placing a call is different that a user identifier of the application (i.e., an application that places calls). App. Br. 20. We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive of Examiner error. Batchu teaches the logging of activity data including the identity of the user placing a call. Batchu 145. We agree with the Examiner that this teaches the claimed “obtaining a user identifier of said application,” as recited in claim 2. See Final Act. 9. 8 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 Further, Appellants argue the cited references do not teach obtaining the tag corresponding to the user identifier of the application. App. Br. 21. As the Examiner explains, Batchu teaches a user can tag calls as personal. Ans. 12 (citing Batchu 1 54). Thus, based on the application identifier (i.e., the call application), data created by this application will be tagged as personal, which is the tag corresponding to the user identifier of the application. Ans. 12 (citing Batchu H 50, 54). Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings. See Reply Br. 9—10. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Claim 3 Claim 3 recites “receiving said identifier of said application, said tag and said storage location of said tagged data from said application.” Appellants assert the cited portions of Batchu and Quinn do not teach the claim language. App. Br. 21—23. In particular, Appellants again assert Quinn teaches an application identification tag that identifies a creator application program. App. Br. 22—23 (citing Quinn 112). Additionally, Appellants assert the cited portions do not teach the claim limitations. App. Br. 21-23 As discussed supra, we do not find Appellants’ argument regarding Quinn’s teaching of an application identification tag persuasive of Examiner error. Further, Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence in support of the contentions that the references do not teach the disputed limitations. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) requires more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked 9 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art. See In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Quinn and Batchu teaches or reasonably suggests the disputed limitation of claim 3. Final Act. 10; Ans. 12—13 (citing Quinn || 31—32; Batchu 45, 47, 54). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. Claim 4 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Batchu teaches prompting a user to select a tag for the application data. App. Br. 24—26. Additionally, Appellants assert there is no teaching in Batchu of receiving the selected tag from the user. App. Br. 26. In response, the Examiner explains Batchu teaches a user interface allows users (i.e., employees) to tag files. Ans. 13 (citing Batchu 1 54). The Examiner further explains, and we agree, “[t]he interface prompts, and the act of tagging causes the system to receive the selection.” Ans. 13. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding or explanation of how Batchu teaches the disputed limitations. See Reply Br. 13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. Claims 5—8 Claims 5 through 8 recite similarlimitations: (i) receive a request to perform an action on all or some of the data tagged as enterprise data; (ii) identify the storage locations of the data upon which the action will be performed; and (iii) perform the requested action. Claim 5 is directed to 10 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 deleting data, claim 6 relates to backing up data; claim 7 encrypts the data, and claim 8 applies access control on the data. Regarding claim 5, Appellants concede “Batchu teaches that the data erasure policies for a particular mobile device may cause the device management system to selectively erase or selectively not erase data corresponding to files that have been pre-tagged.” App. Br. 27. However, Appellants assert the references do not teach identifying one or more storage locations of the tagged data to be deleted using the index. App. Br. 28—29. In response, the Examiner explains Batchu teaches an administrator may use a browser to select files to be deleted. Ans. 13 (citing Batchu 1 60). The Examiner finds this corresponds to identifying the locations of the files. Ans. 13. Further, the Examiner explains the files shown in the browser are those files that have been logged. Ans. 13 (citing Batchu 1 55). As discussed supra, the log in Batchu teaches the claimed index. Ans. 13—14. Thus, Batchu’s log (i.e., the claimed index) is used to populate the files on the browser list, which identifies the locations of the files to be deleted. Appellants further argue in the Reply Brief that Batchu teaches using a file tree to select files to be erased. Reply Br. 14—15 (referencing Batchu, Fig. 7B). Appellants assert this is not the claimed index. Reply Br. 15. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments as they are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. As discussed, the browser (as shown in Batchu, Fig. 7B) corresponds to identifying the locations of the files to be acted upon (i.e., deleted) and the browser list is populated using the log (i.e., claimed index). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. 11 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 Regarding claim 6, the Examiner finds Batchu teaches that various actions (e.g., copying, modifying, and erasing) on selected files may be carried out by an administrator or device management application in similar manners. Ans. 14 (citing Batchu 114). In other words, the Examiner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the same interface used for deletion (i.e., erasing) of selected files with respect to claim 5 would also be used for copying files in order to synchronize the device object stored at the mobile with the database. Ans. 14 (citing Batchu 13—14). Thus, the Examiner finds Batchu’s copying files in order to synchronize the mobile with the database teaches a backing-up action to be performed on the selected files. Ans. 14. Similar to their arguments for claim 5, Appellants contend Batchu fails to teach identifying the storage locations of the tagged data using the index. App. Br. 31. For the reasons discussed supra, we do not find this argument persuasive of Examiner error. Further, Appellants argue Batchu does not teach “backing-up” data, but rather “copying” data or synchronizing the device with a device object stored at the device management database. App. Br. 31; Reply Br. 16—17. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. As the Examiner explains, Batchu teaches copying data on the device in order to synchronize the device (i.e., the data on the device) with the device object stored on the device management database (i.e., the data from the device that is stored at the database). Ans. 14. We find the Examiner applies a broad but reasonable interpretation of backing-up the tagged data, consistent with Appellants’ Specification, to include Batchu’s copying of data in order to 12 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 synchronize the device with the device object stored in the device management database. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Regarding claim 7, the Examiner relies on Good to teach the action of encrypting enterprise data. Final Act. 12 (citing Good 6). Appellants assert the cited portions do not teach the claimed limitations. App. Br. 43 44. Appellants state Good merely teaches providing end-to-end, wireless, real-time collaboration and enterprise application access supported by comprehensive security. App. Br. 43. Further, in response to the Examiner’s statements in the Final Office Action, Appellants assert that claim 7 recites more than just encrypting data and managing data. App. Br. 44. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. As the Examiner explains, and as set forth in the rejections of claims 5 and 6, Batchu teaches the limitations of receiving a request to perform an operation on enterprise-tagged data and identifies the storage location of the tagged data using an index (i.e., Batchu’s log). Ans. 15. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Good teaches an action to be taken with respect to device management is encryption. Ans. 15 (citing Good 6 (Data Protection)). Thus, the combined teachings of Good’s encryption as an action to be used as part of device management with Batchu’s teachings of managing the device (i.e., receiving a request to perform an action and identifying the target data on which to perform the action) teaches the limitation of claim 7. 13 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 Additionally, Appellants belatedly argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that “Good teaches that the enterprise data is automatically encrypted when stored in Good’s container .... Hence, there would be no need to receive a request to encrypt.” Reply Br. 18. This argument was not made in the Appeal Brief, but could have been, and is not responsive to any new evidence set forth by the Examiner in the Answer. In the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, this argument is untimely and deemed waived. Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the [EJxaminer’s answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown. 37 CFR 41.41(b)(2) (2012); see also Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence not presented timely in the principal brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the principal brief); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”). Nonetheless, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because, contrary to Appellants’ assertions, Good does not state that enterprise data is “automatically encrypted when stored in Good’s container” or that encryption of data occurs without a request for encryption. See Good 6. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. 14 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 Regarding claim 8, the Examiner relies on Good to teach the action of applying access controls on enterprise data. Final Act. 13 (citing Good 6). Appellants advance similar arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as those advanced regarding claim 7. App. Br. 44-45. In particular, Appellants assert claim 8 recites more than just “applying access control to enterprise data and/or managing enterprise data.” App. Br. 45. As the Examiner explains, and as set forth in the rejections of claims 5 and 6, Batchu teaches the limitations of receiving a request to perform an operation on enterprise-tagged data and identifies the storage location of the tagged data using an index (i.e., Batchu’s log). Ans. 15. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Good teaches an action to be taken with respect to device management is applying access control. Ans. 15 (citing Good 6 (Authentication)). Thus, the combined teachings of Good’s access control as an action to be used as part of device management with Batchu’s teachings of managing the device (i.e., receiving a request to perform an action and identifying the target data on which to perform the action) teaches the limitation of claim 8. Again, Appellants belatedly argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that although “Good teaches access control, the Examiner has not shown that Good teaches receiving a request to apply access control on all or a selected portion of data tagged as the enterprise data.” Reply Br. 19. Instead, Appellants assert, Good simply teaches the use of strong authentication policies and that only authenticated employees can connect to the Good network operations center. Reply Br. 19. 15 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 This argument was not made in the Appeal Brief, but could have been, and is not responsive to any new evidence set forth by the Examiner in the Answer. In the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, this argument is untimely and deemed waived. See 37 CFR 41.41(b)(2) (2012). Nonetheless, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Batchu and Good. In particular, the Examiner finds Batchu teaches receiving a request to perform an action (i.e., applying access control as taught by Good) on enterprise data. Ans. 15. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Claims 9 and 10 Claim 9 recites implementing an arbitration policy to “select an appropriate tagging mechanism in response to different tagging mechanisms.” In rejecting claim 9, the Examiner relies on Chan to teach an arbitration policy to use when different logging rules conflict. Final Act. 14 (citing Chan | 87). The Examiner explains it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chan with Batchu “to arbitrate different tagging policies by applying data logging of enterprise data as identified by multiple co-existing policies ... in order to resolve any possible conflicts between rules as to whether a given file should be logged or not.” Final Act. 14. Chan is generally directed to problem determination and recognition in autonomous computing systems. Chan, Abstract. Chan teaches the use of 16 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 different rules and courses of action to follow when logging data. Chan, Abstract. Additionally, Chan teaches an approach to resolve conflicts between rules. Chan 187. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because there is no teaching in the references of an arbitration policy to select an appropriate tagging mechanism as claimed. App. Br. 47. In response, the Examiner explains Batchu teaches an embodiment where in data tagged as personal is not logged. Ans. 16 (citing Batchu 1 54). Additionally, Batchu teaches applying contextual rules to determine whether data should be logged. Ans. 16 (citing Batchu 146). The Examiner acknowledges Batchu is “silent as to what if the rules conflict.” Ans. 16. However, the Examiner explains a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Chan with those of Batchu “in order to make better use of the selectivity as taught by Batchu.” Ans. 16. We agree with Appellants that the proposed combination and reasoning provided by the Examiner does not teach the claimed limitation of “implementing an arbitration policy to select an appropriate tagging mechanism.” Ans. 16 (emphasis added). Rather, as articulated by the Examiner, the proposed combination suggests an arbitration policy to determine when data is to be logged. For the reasons discussed supra, and on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Claim 10 recites implementing an arbitration policy to “select an appropriate tag associated with said tagged data on said mobile device in response to different tags being associated with said tagged data on said mobile device.” 17 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner relies on Panwar to teach detecting customer data in files. Final Act. 15 (citing Panwar || 2, 8). The Examiner explains it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Panwar with Batchu and Quinn to arbitrate a conflict between a file identified as enterprise data by the DLP [(Data Loss Prevention)] methods of Penwar [sic] . . . and a file identified as personal data by the user of the device ... by marking the file as enterprise so as to ensure that the policy of protecting customer data is followed. Final Act. 15. Panwar is generally directed to “handling fuzziness in sensitive keywords from data loss prevention (DLP) policies.” Panwar 14. Panwar teaches generating various permutations of keywords indicative of a use- restricted document. Panwar H 3, 4. Documents are searched for the generated permutations of keywords and, if detected, the document is identified as being use-restricted (i.e., enterprise data). Panwar || 2-4, 8. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because there is no teaching in the references of an arbitration policy to select an appropriate tag associated with the tagged data on a mobile device in response to different tags being associated with the tagged data. App. Br. 52—53. In response, the Examiner explains: Panwar teaches a data loss prevention policy that states that use[r]-restricted data is properly enterprise data, and therefore[,] teaches an arbitration policy that, in combination with Batchu, states that if a file is recognizable as containing customer data, the data should be stored as tagged as enterprise even if the user tags it as personal. Ans. 16—17. 18 Appeal 2015-003601 Application 13/470,662 We agree with Appellants that the proposed combination and reasoning provided by the Examiner does not teach the claimed limitation of “implementing an arbitration policy to select an appropriate tag . . . in response to different tags being associated with said tagged data.” The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the selection of an appropriate tag is in response to different tags being associated with the tagged data. Rather, Panwar’s DLP approach, or Batchu’s auto-tagging (see, e.g., Batchu 1 54), selects an appropriate tag based on the file content. For the reasons discussed supra, and on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—8. We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9 and 10. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation